The Bestest Anti-Choice Legislation Name EVAH

[dps]

Can you actually legally kill a trespassing minor, anywhere in US?

As I understand it, in most jurisdictions, not if you're aware that they're a minor, unless you are in fear for your life.  Of course, if the minor is in question a 2-year old, you might have trouble convincing a jury that you couldn't tell that they were under 18, or that you were really afraid that they might kill you.

[Neil]

No, and you're even obliged to pay for it under restitutionary law.

Unless you live somewhere good, with socialized medicine.

[Ideologue]

Can you actually legally kill a trespassing minor, anywhere in US?

Not simply trespass.  But if they forcibly enter my dwelling (well, in my case, it would be the same thing), I could gun them down and enjoy the presumption that I was reasonably in fear of death or blah blah blah.

[Ideologue]

Can you actually legally kill a trespassing minor, anywhere in US?

As I understand it, in most jurisdictions, not if you're aware that they're a minor, unless you are in fear for your life.  Of course, if the minor is in question a 2-year old, you might have trouble convincing a jury that you couldn't tell that they were under 18, or that you were really afraid that they might kill you.

Conceivably, it wouldn't get to a jury here.  It's an immunity, not an affirmative defense, and the case would be dismissed by a judge following a pre-trial hearing to determine if the immunity applied.  I'd even get my attorney's fees reimbursed if charged.

That's the black-letter law.  It presumes any forcible entry into a dwelling sufficiently places one in fear of a violent crime.  It is silent as to whether the presumption is conclusive or rebuttable in the statute.  I suspect, however, that in an outrageous case like the one you suppose, the presumption would suddenly become rebuttable, and be rebutted to the satisfaction of the prosecutor.

[Valmy]

Wait so what the substance to this thing?  Make it illegal for black women to get an abortion because of black women's KKK-esque tendencies?  And having a law directed against black women in particular is anti-discrimination somehow? 

[Syt]

Blacks can be disciriminatory, too. James Earl Jones says so!

[Capetan Mihali]

Can you actually legally kill a trespassing minor, anywhere in US?

The cops at least can't kill a fleeing, unarmed suspect (minor or not, though it was a 15 year old in this case), as a matter of 4th Amendment search and seizure law.  A .40 round to the back of the head of an unarmed burglary suspect is an unconstitutional "seizure."  Tenn. v. Garner.

[Razgovory]

Wait so what the substance to this thing?  Make it illegal for black women to get an abortion because of black women's KKK-esque tendencies?  And having a law directed against black women in particular is anti-discrimination somehow? 

I dunno, all we have is Dana Milbank's article.

[Razgovory]

Can you actually legally kill a trespassing minor, anywhere in US?

Not simply trespass.  But if they forcibly enter my dwelling (well, in my case, it would be the same thing), I could gun them down and enjoy the presumption that I was reasonably in fear of death or blah blah blah.

If a 2 year old wandered in to your house and you shot him up, I imagine the judge won't look to kindly on the "I was afraid for my life".   Especially if you previously had invited him in and were now tired of him being in your house.

[Valmy]

I dunno, all we have is Dana Milbank's article.

I know it seems like they never got around to explaining what the law actually made illegal.

[The Minsky Moment]

Actually, years ago I thought that a civil rights approach would be a fruitful one for the anti-abortion lobby.  You aren't going to convince many people with hellfire and brimstone rhetoric, but if you start arguing that government and private citizens shouldn't legislate who is and isn't a person and it's best to err on the side of caution in such matters, you might get more support.

Very difficult to take that line if what you are arguing for is coercive government action that imposes criminal sanction.

Why?

Because if the government isn't in a position to make judgments about when life arises pre-birth, and if the government should accordingly err on the side of caution, then in the context of a system of government based on the premise of limited governmental power and a default of personal liberty and autonomy, the cautionary position is *not* to exercise coercive powers of the state.

[Razgovory]

The Government is in position to decide who is and isn't a person.  I don't see erring on the side of caution as necessarily a premise of limited government.  You aren't allowed to keep slaves though you can keep livestock.  If the US government came into possession of Slargos for some reason they would have to decide if he was a human or simply a particularly ugly chimp.  It would be best to err on the side of caution and treat him as a human rather then test cosmetics on him.

[crazy canuck]

Actually, years ago I thought that a civil rights approach would be a fruitful one for the anti-abortion lobby.  You aren't going to convince many people with hellfire and brimstone rhetoric, but if you start arguing that government and private citizens shouldn't legislate who is and isn't a person and it's best to err on the side of caution in such matters, you might get more support.

Very difficult to take that line if what you are arguing for is coercive government action that imposes criminal sanction.

Why?

Because if the government isn't in a position to make judgments about when life arises pre-birth, and if the government should accordingly err on the side of caution, then in the context of a system of government based on the premise of limited governmental power and a default of personal liberty and autonomy, the cautionary position is *not* to exercise coercive powers of the state.

Limited government power is not the argument being made by Raz though.  His argument is that from the perspective of protecting human rights one ought to err on the side of caution in deciding what is human and what is not.  His argument is actually the reverse of your rebuttal.  He is arguing for the government to decide the issue of who is entitled to protection under the law.